Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

They may well be, but I still ask the question, given the vast amounts of money involved. As I said, about 80 per cent. of assisted reproduction procedures are paid for privately. Whatever the objectives of relieving pain and suffering, or improving health, it is almost impossible that the benefits of such research could be made universally available. There is a strange irony in all this. Professor Galton says:"““The new eugenic technology””—" as he calls it—"““may become a vital weapon to prevent a future genetic deterioration of our species.””" He refers to the decline of some species as a result of the loss of diversity in the gene pool and points out:"““Our own genetic decline may take a different form. One hundred years ago some people would never have been able to reproduce. People with early-onset diabetes, premature heart attacks, malignant high blood pressure…may have survived into their reproductive period, but were too unhealthy to have children. Nowadays””—" and herein lies the irony—"““improvements in medical and surgical treatments allow such people to lead an almost normal reproductive life. Before the discovery and use of insulin””—" as the hon. Member for Norwich, North pointed out—"““early-onset diabetics had almost no chance of having children of their own.””" Professor Galton continues:"““The consequences of these medical advances are that parents can more freely transmit their disease-related genes to their children. These defective genes would be expected to accumulate from generation to generation in ever increasing numbers.””" It is important to reflect on that. He continues:"““To prevent this we may need in the future to screen embryos for disease-related genes and if possible to repair them at an early stage using the most powerful tools we have. The new eugenic technology may play a prominent role in this.””" That is the killer point. It is a strange irony, and in many ways a tragedy, that however beneficial the advances in medical science might have been, somebody who makes claims for eugenic technology now says that one of the cardinal arguments for this new embryonic research—I leave aside the issue of adult stem-cell research, which is the route that we should go down—is to rectify the difficulties to which those advances have led. That is an extraordinary situation, which creates real dilemmas, but we need to reflect on the fact that life is not perfect. Furthermore, however much we might seek to do so, we cannot, for example, extend our lives indefinitely. At the heart of some of the moral questions that we must struggle with is whether we are not crossing a Rubicon to try to achieve the unachievable. It is not just a question of science or ethics, but of realities, on which all the best morality is ultimately based. We must be extremely cautious. The idea that the research would be available primarily for those who could afford it is very worrying. I noted with considerable concern Professor Galton's comments about that. I also read a newspaper article—I think that it was in the Evening Standard last week. [Interruption.] I do not vouch for its veracity; if it was wrong, I stand corrected. It suggested that some of the people involved—I might as well mention their names, as they were in the public press—such as Professor Ian Craft and, I think, Dr. Taranissi, were earning phenomenal amounts from such research: between £3 million and £5 million a year. I hope that they were not misrepresented in any way.